U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source:
The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 30142
Comments: 205
Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership? By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning. During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership. The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn. Second Amendment Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national? Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well. On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword. Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA. A Double-Edged Sword… While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar. However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights. In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way. You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken. I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end? Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section. Share This!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 174.
#7. To: Don (#0)
This statement, coming from a guy who has "taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law", is absurd. As written, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government. It's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. "The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms." States have the ultimate power. The federal government only has the powers given to them by the states. States can do whatever the hell they want, provided it does not violate their state constitution. Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents.
No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind. The rights are God given and just because of your fetish for the people who wear black robes to hide penis pumps try to change simple words are winning, doesn't mean they, and Jeb! are right. What exactly in your feeble mind can the government NOT do? What rights can they not regulate into irrelevancy? Meanwhile, your buddy Jon Corzine is still not in jail. Maybe he owns a company who makes and 'services' penis pumps? Do you work for him as a field rep?
What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread, that tells the rest of the story. Why after what I wrote to you, I really am laughing like hell at you for going down this road. You really can't make this up...lmao!
I have no interest in penis pumps.
DCW does.
Do you REALLY want to start an insult war with me? Because you will most certainly lose.
Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago.
Yep. And DCW cheered, totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms. Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).
NYSRPA v Cuomo, WDNY 1:13-cv-00291-WMS, Doc 140, OPINION AND ORDER (12/31/13) At 5: NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 19: NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 21:
So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)?
Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons. The militia and the military are two different things. The right to keep and bear arms is the common law right that the people brought with them when the left colonial status behind and when they set up their constitutional form of government. With the Second Amendment, the people did not give a definition of it, but they provided their rationale for prohibiting the Federal government from infringing upon it. Determine what the term "right to keep and bear arms" meant in 1776 or 1789, and that is the right that is referred to and protected. It was referred to in a context that included a weak Federal government and a very small standing army which would be no match for the state militias. That context no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the civil war.
The right to keep and bear arms is the common law right that the people brought with them when the left colonial status behind No declaration from government is necessary to establish God given natural rights. They didn't have to "bring" rights from anywhere. Inalienable rights predate all governments and edicts. The US Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. The Second Amendment specifically prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear ARMS. That includes clubs, rocks, arrows, swords, firearms, nukes, WMD's, and what have you. If you feel the need for a Kenyan dictator to disarm you, please MOVE TO KENYA!!!
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second Amendment.
"Shall not be infringed". By whom? Anyone and everyone. Historically, government is the most likely perp, and the scofflaw .gov worshipers.
So it was unconstitutional for Sheriff Andy Taylor to take away Deputy Barney Fife's bullet? Good Lord, that show was communism! Communism, I tells ya!!!
Are you an actual retard? Setting aside for a moment the fact it was a silly sit-com and not real life,Deputy Barny HAD NO BULLETS. They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees. Secondly,they are agents of the government,as as such are NOT protected by the Second Amendment while in uniform and on duty. Off duty and not wearing the uniform or driving the police car,they have the same rights as the rest of us.
No, I don't think we're related.
No, I don't think we're related. You must be a retard,or you would know we are not related. They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees. When did they say that on the show? And there is the proof.
You tards do love your non sequiturs. I'll give a few minutes to drool in confusion.
I'm beginning to suspect you aren't smart enough to be a retard.
Lemme know when you find the clause in the Second Amendment stating that agents of state and local governments "are NOT protected by the Second Amendment" against federal infringements. Did you read that in your copy of Constimutushunal Law for Tards? Your infatuation with centralized government is pretty creepy there, Sneaky.
They ARE the government,you dumbass. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the PEOPLE,NOT the government.
You big government lovers ALWAYS lie and claim that state and local governments are THE government. That's dead a giveaway for spotting your kind. You hate the legacy of multiple distinct governments and dual sovereignty created for us by our framers and founders.
You are not only an idiot,but proud of it.
You count on big government to spread your perversion.
Is that you,Yu-Tard? Out of rehab again?
You worship THE government.
You just have to keep insisting over and over that you are a world-class fool,don't you? YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government. You make Goober Gore and Barry Obomber look intelligent by comparison.
Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military. The entire Bill of Rights applies to government agents and employees. The First Amendment right to free speech. The Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The First Amentment starts, "Congress shall make no law...." It explicitly applies to the government and its agents. Heck, a better example of an RKBA exception is prison inmates. We would not want them packing heat. The RKBA may not be infringed. The RKBA is not a right to keep and bear arms under any and all circumstances. It was not such a right under English common law for the colonists, and it was not such a right when brought into the states by the former colonists. The RKBA has exceptions as provided by law since before there was a United States. It has never protected a right for prison inmates to keep and bear arms. If you are an employee, your employer can prohibit the bearing of arms while acting as an employee. If Wal*Mart prohibits its employees from carrying at work, it would not infer the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. It would mean that the RKBA does not provide the right under the circumstances. It is not an infringement of the RKBA, when the right does not exist under the circumstances. The RKBA in Federal facilities is restricted by Federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117. (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law; (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. [snip] During the administration of G.H.W. Bush: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf DOD Directive 5210-56 (25 Feb 1992) Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties It is DoD Policy: 1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform. I PERSONALLY know of a senior NCO at Fort Bragg that had his company commander (a LTC) confiscate his privately-owned guns from his off-base house after he was arrested for drunk driving off base. This same company commander put the word out that he would court-martial any man in his company that was caught on Bragg with a privately owned weapon in his possession,even if it was in a car,and even if they had a NC CCW permit. Piece of shit reserve SF Colonel from Mass that used his political connections to get on AD. Last I heard he got transferred from Bragg to Thailand to avoid the stink of him breaking and entering the MSG's house off base to seize his privately-owned weapons and ammunition,and them dump them all in Lott Lake. I heard later that the MSG got a civilian lawyer to represent him because the LTC was trying to get him reduced in rank,and the MSG's lawyer was trying to get the Fayetteville PD to arrest the LTC for felony theft and breaking and entering. The compromise they reached was the MSG was allowed to retire with his rank and was paid damages for the financial losses he had suffered,and the LTC went to Thailand,where he was promoted to Full Colonel. Last I heard a few years ago was he had been transferred to the Pentagram and was going to be promoted to General.
Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform. I pity the subordinates who relied on you to counsel them about their rights. David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice, Fifth Edition, 1999, page 7: Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 2012 Ed., Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) Military Rules of Evidence (R.M.E.) M.C.M. page II-55: R.C.M. 604(B): Discussion See also R.C.M. 915 (Mistrial). When charges which have been withdrawn from a courtmartial are referred to another court-martial, the reasons for the withdrawal and later referral should be included in the record of the later court-martial, if the later referral is more onerous to the accused. Therefore, if further prosecution is contemplated at the time of the withdrawal, the reasons for the withdrawal should be included in or attached to the record of the earlier proceeding. Improper reasons for withdrawal include an intent to interfere with the free exercise by the accused of constitutional rights or rights provided under the code, or with the impartiality of a court-martial. A withdrawal is improper if it was not directed personally and independently by the convening authority or by a superior competent authority. Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist. M.C.M. page II-81: R.C.M. 806(d) A session may be closed over the objection of the accused or the public upon meeting the constitutional standard set forth in this Rule. See also Mil. R. Evid. 412(c), 505(i), and 513(e)(2). Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist. M.C.M. page III-1: M.R.E. 103 Whatever is that talking about with regard to "requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces?" M.C.M. page III-3: M.R.E. 301: (a) General rule. The privileges against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 31 are applicable only to evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. The privilege most beneficial to the individual asserting the privilege shall be applied. Damn, the 5th Amendment too. M.C.M. page III-4: M.R.E. 301(g) And the list goes on and on and on.
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit. Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?
You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable.
You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable. The fact that all you have is arguments that were cherry picked and posed by others is also understandable. You have have make a decision on your own and have no actual experience.
There are no replies to Comment # 174. End Trace Mode for Comment # 174.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights."
#13. To: misterwhite (#7)
Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
"No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?
#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#19)
"Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread"
#29. To: misterwhite (#20)
I have no interest in penis pumps.
#33. To: Roscoe (#29)
DCW does.
#34. To: Dead Culture Watch (#33)
#39. To: Roscoe (#34)
"Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago."
#58. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#39)
Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).
In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny. As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and largecapacity magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest. Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
"Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense."
#64. To: misterwhite (#60)
So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)?
#90. To: nolu chan, *Bang List* (#64)
(Edited)
Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons
#92. To: hondo68 (#90)
The Second Amendment specifically prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear ARMS.
#99. To: Roscoe, government stooge, Obongo Nation (#92)
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second
#102. To: hondo68 (#99)
Anyone and everyone.
#108. To: Roscoe (#102)
So it was unconstitutional for Sheriff Andy Taylor to take away Deputy Barney Fife's bullet?
#111. To: sneakypete (#108)
Are you an actual retard?
They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees.
When did they say that on the show? Never mind. So the point you're dimly struggling to make is that Barney shoulda/woulda/coulda brought his own bullet to work.Secondly,they are agents of the government,as as such are NOT protected by the Second Amendment while in uniform and on duty.
Did you wash your hand after pulling that crap out of its hole?
#112. To: Roscoe (#111)
Are you an actual retard?
#115. To: sneakypete (#112)
You must be a retard,or you would know we are not related.
the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees
.But your special friend, who you are chivalrously trying to defend, said: "Shall not be infringed". By whom? Anyone and everyone.
Besides, if your "logic" was true and police have no Second Amendment rights, your hero Obama could disarm all of the state and local police without violating the Second Amendment. He could call his federal Executive Order the Sneakypete Decree. That would serve your love of centralized government quite nicely.
#123. To: Roscoe (#115)
Besides, if your "logic" was true and police have no Second Amendment rights,
#135. To: sneakypete (#123)
#138. To: Roscoe (#135)
Lemme know when you find the clause in the Second Amendment stating that agents of state and local governments "are NOT protected by the Second Amendment"
#139. To: sneakypete (#138)
They ARE the government
#141. To: Roscoe (#139)
You big government lovers ALWAYS lie and claim that state and local governments are THE government. That's dead a giveaway for spotting your kind. You hate the legacy of multiple distinct governments and dual sovereignty created for us by our framers and founders.
#145. To: sneakypete (#141)
#146. To: Roscoe (#145)
(Edited)
You count on big government to spread your perversion.
#147. To: sneakypete (#146)
#148. To: Roscoe (#147)
You worship THE government.
#152. To: sneakypete, Roscoe (#148)
YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government.
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 930
D. POLICY
#155. To: nolu chan (#152)
Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military.
#161. To: sneakypete (#155)
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infrincement of individual rights. Military due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protection than the Constitution.
(b) Referral of withdrawn charges. Charges which have been withdrawn from a court-martial may be referred to another court-martial unless the withdrawal was for an improper reason. Charges withdrawn after the introduction of evidence on the general issue of guilt may be referred to another court-martial only if the withdrawal was necessitated by urgent and unforeseen military necessity.
The military judge is responsible for protecting both the accused’s right to, and the public’s interest in, a public trial. A court-martial session is “closed” when no member of the public is permitted to attend. A court-martial is not “closed” merely because the exclusion of certain individuals results in there being no spectators present, as long as the exclusion is not so broad as to effectively bar everyone who might attend the sessions and is put into place for a proper purpose.
Once the military judge makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. The standard provided in this subdivision does not apply to errors involving requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces except insofar as the error arises under these rules and this subdivision provides a standard that is more advantageous to the accused than the constitutional standard.
Rule 301. Privilege concerning compulsory self-incrimination
(3) Pretrial. The fact that the accused during official questioning and in exercise of rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or Article 31, remained silent, refused to answer a certain question, requested counsel, or requested that the questioning be terminated is inadmissible against the accused.
#164. To: nolu chan (#161)
#167. To: sneakypete (#164)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
#174. To: nolu chan (#167)
Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.
Replies to Comment # 174.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]